17 comments:

We know that the government is going to fall and that there will be an election. Now its just all about each party trying to stake out the moral high ground of being the party that is most reluctant to force an election - so that public anger about the fourth election in five years can be directed elsewhere. Makes sense to me. The ball is in Harper's court - does he want to be intransigent and force an election or does he want to cooperate. We already know the answer is the former - but why not hammer it home over and over again.

One thing I can 100% guarantee is that the government will live or die based on what the parties as a whole decide to do. I think that there is zero chance that Ignatieff, Duceppe and Layton all announce that they will vote non-confidence and then 12 of their MPs don't show up for the vote. That would be the worst of both worlds for the the party involved. In any case, parliament will be sitting from Sept. 14 to just before Christmas - its not as if there is just one confidence vote that the government needs to survive, there could be half a dozen votes during the fall session that could be called "confidence votes"

The Liberals got NOTHING in return for propping up Harper for the last few years - absolutely NOTHING. I wonder if its all a quid pro quo that if the Liberals form a minority government, the Tories will support them as they bring in an Igantieff-inspired rightwing agenda?

Nothing, hmm. Budget 09, take a read. Then compare what the Cons said prior to what they "gave" us. If this was true, what you say, then why do people refer to it as a "liberal" budget, not partisans, just observers.

Steve, I take your Dogs of War point, and yes it does feel like we're in E-mode, I just have a hunch that KFC-NDP will find an out somewheres. Anthony, rational argument has no place in an election! 8-?